[crossposted from dailykos] They said it couldn't be done. They said we were nuts. They said the time wasn't right. But it can be done - we're doing it; we're not nuts; and the time is now. The perfect storm, the trifecta of technology, politics, and demographics is upon us here in California, and we're seizing the day.
In this diary I'll explain this magic moment and how the Restore Equality 2010 campaign is taking advantage of it - and how you can help. It starts with cannabis (no, not the way you're thinking!), beneath the fold.
It's tempting to look at the recent gay marriage defeats in Maine and California, and say at least we're on the "right side of history." The opposition is running on borrowed time, as young people increasingly support marriage equality. But the trend is not moving fast enough, and it's clear that gay marriage supporters have been losing the "swing vote" in every election. Same-sex couples have largely won the battle for civil unions, but there's something about "marriage" that makes moderates uneasy - and it's time that we speak directly to their concerns. Third Way, a Washington DC based think tank, conducted a poll of 600 Maine voters right after Question One passed in November - which holds important conclusions we should build upon. As we look at repealing Prop 8 in California, going straight to those voters so we can win and finally move on to other battles is key. None of us want to wait until the old generation dies out, and nor should we have to.
Remember all those experts who were scared of appearing on YouTube? Well, I don't know if they knew this when they were lining up to be deposed, but depositions become part of the public record, and fortunately for us, we have said depositions. And even more helpfully, we have clips on YouTube of Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, you know the people who believe that men are constantly and subtly being discriminated against.
Anyway, these folks go around doing expert testimony for social conservative causes. Apparently hiding their faces while doing so. Perhaps Paul Nathanson should have hidden more than his face during the Iowa same-sex marriage, Varnum V. Brien, and just gone mute. It would have done more benefit for the opponents of marriage equality. Nathanson's testimony Varnum was so ridiculous that the court struck it from the record stating that his testimony was "not based on observation supported by scientific methodology or . . . on empirical research in any sense."
Forgetting my legal training, and just looking at a quick behavioral and textual reading of this testimony, it is clear that neither of these two witnesses would have done a lick of good for the Prop 8 defense. As we go through these clips, you'll know exactly what I mean. Let's start with Paul Nathanson (transcript here):
Q - Let's try to break that down into two parts. First, you recognize that gay couples are today raising children, correct?
A - Yes.
Q - And you believe that enabling those gay couples to marry would enhance their ability to be good parents to the chi-
A - Yes.
Basically, this guy admits something that David Blankenhorn ended up admitting on the stand: lack of marriage equality harms children being raised by LGBT parents. While the defense completely failed to prove that there was any damage whatsoever from marriage equality on the children of straight parents, over and over again, event the defense's own witnesses acknowledged that there was real and serious harm done to not only LGBT couples, but their families. Meanwhile, Nathanson is looking unhappy and snippy. All in all, he was just another Blankenhorn debacle waiting to happen. And, I think even the defense would privately admit that could have gone better.
And Katherine Young would not have been much better. See the thing is that with these scientists, they've actually read these studies, and understand the background. This is where Boies picked apart Prof. Miller. Miller had to eventually admit that his position was contrary to the great bulk of research in the field. And Miller's testimony, at its best, could only go to a small portion of what they were trying to show. Young wound up admitting a gold mine's worth in her deposition. It's almost hard to pick out selections from the transcript of Young's deposition.
Q - My question is, is it your view that because something was the norm in the past, it should be continued in the future? ...
A - Just because something is a norm, it doesn't necessarily mean it is an appropriate norm, and it has to then be reassessed in the contemporary context to see if t norm should remain.
***
Q - And you believe that allowing gay couples to marry will increase the durability of those gay couples relationships, correct?
A - Okay. I'll say yes.
***
Q - Okay. And increasing the durability of those relationships is beneficial to the children that they're raising, correct?
A - On that one factor, yes.
While Young does come across looking annoyed, she doesn't seem quite so smug as Blankenhorn and Nathanson, so point for her on that. However, the factual admissions she makes were just too much for the Prop 8 defense to consider putting her on the stand.
At any rate, both Nathanson and Young hardly look fearful of appearing either on YouTube or on the witness stand. This was a purely tactical decision masquerading as something else. After all, they have written several books together about how men are an oppressed minority, they are hardly afraid of spouting controversial opinions in public. The reason these two didn't testify has nothing to do with being scared, and everything to do with the fact that they were simply bad witnesses.
The complaint alleges that Pugno misused public funds while on the staff of State Senator Pete Knight in the late 1990s to help the campaign to pass the so-called "Knight Initiative" - a California version of the Defense of Marriage Act banning same-sex marriage. This went to voters in November 2000 as Proposition 22 and was approved with 61% of the vote. This was struck down by the California Supreme Court in May 2008, and in turn Pugno and his allies in the leadership of the LDS and Catholic Churches put Prop 8 on the ballot to change the state constitution to ban marriage. The evidence suggests that not only was Pugno involved with those institutions involved in the planning and management of Prop 8 as we learned at the trial, but that their collaboration goes back into the late 1990s and may have violated state law.
Pugno is of course the general counsel to ProtectMarriage.com, and a candidate for the Republican nomination for the 5th District State Assembly seat. He is a key figure in the campaign strategy used for both Prop 22 and Prop 8, and for the legal defense of Prop 8 in both the California Supreme Court and in Judge Vaughn Walker's federal courtroom. As longtime Trial Trackers know, Pugno also played a key role in trying get the Courage Campaign Prop 8 Trial Tracker shut down by suing Courage Campaign over the logo we use at the site.
Here's what led to the filing of the complaint. On Wednesday investigative reporter Robert Salladay published an article on Pugno's involvement in the Prop 22 campaign while on the payroll of the California State Senate. Specifically, it was alleged that Pugno used public resources of the State Senate - phones, faxes, stationery - to vet the proposed initiative with Mormon leaders. Salladay included a letter Pugno wrote on February 26, 1998 to BYU law professor Lynn Wardle. The letter was on California State Senate letterhead and asked Wardle to review proposed ballot language with an eye toward ensuring it could pass at the ballot box. It was also reported that Pugno may have used public funds to travel to Arizona for a "strategic consultation" meeting with LDS leaders that same year.
That appears to be in violation of the Political Reform Act, which governs issues such as this. In fact, Salladay's article quoted FPPC staff on this very point:
As for Pugno using Senate letterhead for a political issue - and asking Wardle to use the government fax machine and phone lines - the law is fairly strict. One regulation does allow for "incidental" campaign use, but Roman Porter, executive director of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said about cases like this in general: "The use of public funds for campaign purposes is unlawful."
Based on the letter and the other evidence reported, Rick Jacobs filed the official complaint against Pugno with the FPPC. He also wrote to Attorney General Jerry Brown seeking an investigation (see that letter here) and to the Secretary of the Senate, Greg Schmidt, seeking public disclosure of various documents related to Pugno's campaign work while on the staff of Senator Knight (see that letter here).
Here's what Rick Jacobs had to say about the filing:
The new and troubling disclosures appear to demonstrate willful disrespect for the laws and rules governing the conduct of public servants. If he broke California law, how can he expect to be elected to office to make California law? Andy Pugno needs to be investigated and any appropriate consequences levied for his actions.
We will keep everyone posted on what happens with the FPPC complaint and other requests for investigation and public disclosure we have filed.
This is crossposted from the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Today should be the last day of testimony, with the closing arguments coming in a couple of weeks as to let Judge Walker digest the evidence a bit. You can get a whole slew of information about the trial at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker.
Well, this should be the last day of testimony, and the defense's case is looking pretty shabby so far. Unless Blankenhorn's redirect is simply amazing, he's also going to be a net loss for their side. But don't worry, Pugno can tell you how it really is:
The afternoon brought the testimony of our second witness, David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, who provided his expertise on the institution of marriage, fatherhood and the family structure. He rejected the suggestion by plaintiffs that marriage is purely a private construct between two adults. Rather, he explained, marriage between a man and woman is a globally recognized and historically public institution. In fact, it is the only social relationship with a "biological foundation" found in the complementary nature of man and woman and their ability to procreate. Across all cultures and times, no other human relationship has been more closely connected to the ultimate goal of uniting the biological, social and legal dimensions of parenthood for the raising of children.
You'll be shocked (shocked!) to know that Pugno doesn't mention Blankenhorn's cross examination where he goes on to say that "We would be more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than the day before." Pugno argues that their definition is the correct definition, the only definition. But Ted Olson puts the lie to that:
This is the game that they're playing. They define marriage as a man and a woman. They call that the institution of marriage. So if you let a man marry a man and a woman marry a woman, it would de-institutionalize marriage. That is the same as saying you are deinstitutionalizing the right to vote when you let women have it. It's a game. It's a tautology. They're saying, 'this is the definition. You're going to change the definition by allowing people access that don't have it now, and that would change it so that people who currently have access won't want it any more because it's changed.' This is all nonsense. They are not proving that. This is a syllogism that falls apart. The major premise, minor premise and conclusion are empty.
Pugno responds that voting didn't really change when women were allowed to vote. History might disagree. The effects of women voting were pronounced and dramatic. The world, and this country specifically, would be a very different place without universal suffrage. But even if we take Pugno's point on its surface, that the definition of marriage would be changed, it doesn't take much more than a few google searches or a little time with a history book or two to realize that the concept of marriage is and has been a hodgepodge across the nations. Pugno's definition, while perhaps true for him, needn't be given more weight than the definition which excluded miscegenation or the definition of marriage that viewed women as property.
Marriage itself began as a way for human, who were living in caves at the time, to be sure of paternity. In some societies, it became a virtual indentured servitude to the husband. For example, a simple Wikipedia search for marriage will net you several different definitions. The Comanches and Ancient Greeks used marriage to subjugate, the medieval Europeans saw love as antithetical to marriage, and used it as a means of sealing political bonds. In fact, early Christian rulers almost always forced their daughters and siblings into marriages for their games of political chess. The fact behind all this ranting is that you can only use tautology for so long. Eventually, you need some real facts. And throughout this entire case, all we've seen is more empty vessels. Even NPR remarked today that Blankenhorn was the fifth defense expert who ended up giving testimony that favored the plaintiffs.
Today, the dust should settle on the testimony, and the judge will move on to consider the evidence before him. We should get a date for closing arguments soon, but we will definitely keep you posted.
Note: I'm the Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign
UPDATE: Judge Karlton denied the TRO request and makes it sound like he is not likely to rule against us on the lawsuit either.
Original post begins here:
Since we launched last Monday, the Courage Campaign's Prop 8 Trial Tracker has become a leading source for information about the trial in Judge Vaughn Walker's courtroom, since ProtectMarriage.com got the Supreme Court to block plans to televise the trial. We've had over 800,000 views and over 6,400 comments since we launched, a sign of how popular our liveblogging has become.
But there's one group out there that isn't a fan, and that's ProtectMarriage.com. Last Friday they sent Courage Campaign a cease and desist letter regarding our parody of the "Yes on 8" logo that we use on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Late yesterday, we learned that ProtectMarriage.com filed suit in US district court seeking a temporary restraining order asking a federal judge to order us to take our logo down.
Our lawyers' response: no way. As our lawyer said, our logo is a "sassy" parody of their logo.
We continue to be entertained by the Prop 8 attorneys simultaneously admitting that the two images of gay parents and straight parents are "substantially indistinguishable," and yet failing to grasp that that the difference between the logos illuminates the core difference between their views and ours.
My colleague Julia Rosen posted the complaint and our response over at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. We don't know yet whether Judge Lawrence K. Karlton will grant, deny, or ask for a hearing on the TRO.
Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the Courage Campaign, had this to say in our press release:
The Courage Campaign Institute will continue to focus our energy on this historic trial and the rights and protections at stake for loving, committed same-sex couples. ProtectMarriage.com can continue to expend time, energy and resources on a logo. Frankly, I think that says a lot about our respective priorities.
We thought that our response laying out the tremendous legal precedent in cases like this would be the end of this silliness. But we are more than happy to defend our case if Prop 8 supporters continue to argue that the difference between their logo and ours is "substantially indistinguishable," given that their logo features a father and mother and our logo features two mothers.
This is yet another attempt by Prop 8 supporters to distract from the facts being brought forth at this trial that are demonstrating quite clearly both the discrimination same-sex couples face and the need and benefit to society of equal treatment under the law.
We're confident that the law and precedent are on our side. Our logo is an obvious parody of the ProtectMarriage.com logo. More importantly, ProtectMarriage.com is essentially claiming that there isn't a difference between a family headed by a man and a woman and a family headed by two women. Wouldn't it be nice if they argued that in Judge Walker's courtroom? As one of the commenters on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker argued:
I just really want to hear [Rachel Maddow] say "Protectmarriage.com is suing Courage Campaign, saying a lesbian couple is indistinguishable from a heterosexual one. In other news, protectmarriage.com continues to argue that homosexuals are too different from heterosexuals to deserve equal protection under the law."
You can see the logos for yourself:
We'll be sure to keep you updated as to how this turns out. We're not going to let the opponents of equality silence us.
As the Prop 8 trial continues, I'll be doing some blogging over at the Courage Campaign's Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Check it out as the trial proceeds: http://prop8trialtracker.com/
Ruling about an hour ago, the US Supreme Court offered beleaguered Prop 8 supporters a lifeline by indefinitely staying Judge Walker's and the 9th Circuit's decision to allow cameras to film the Prop 8 trial:
In an unsigned opinion Wednesday, the court criticized Walker for attempting to change the rules "at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials."
While the court set no time limit in its ruling, any further proceedings at high court likely would come after the trial was over....
In a dissent written by Breyer, they said the high court should have stayed out of the issue.
Breyer said "the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts."
Breyer's dissent also made mention of the enormous amount of public comment asking for the trial to be televised, including the 138,242 signatures on a Courage Campaign and CREDO petition that we delivered to Judge Walker last Friday:
Then, on December 31, the Court revised its public notice to ask for comments directly. By January 8, 2010, the Court had received 138,574 comments, all but 32 of which favored transmitting the proceedings.
There was also sufficient "opportunity for comment." The parties, the intervenors, other judges, the public-all had an opportunity to comment. The parties were specifically invited by Chief Judge Walker to comment on the possibility of broadcast as early as September. And the entire public was invited by the District Court to submit comments after the rule change was announced, right up to the eve of trial. As I said, the court received 138,574 comments during that time. How much more "opportunity for comment" does the Court believe necessary, particularly when the statutes themselves authorize the local court to put a new rule into effect "without" receiving any "comments" before doing so when that local "court determines that there is an immediate need" to do so (and to receive comments later)? And more importantly, what is the legal source of the Court's demand for additional comment time in respect to a rule change to conform to Judicial Council policy?
Of course, this isn't about the rules of the federal courts, but about the desire of Prop 8 defenders to keep the trial hidden from public view as much as possible, in order to prevent the public from knowing just how crazy and insane their position is. Just today the court broadcast an explosive video from the deposition of William Tam, one of the official proponents of Prop 8, who said things like:
They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda -- after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children...
We hope to convince Asian-Americans that gay marriage will encourage more children to experiment with the gay lifestyle and that the lifestyle comes with all kinds of disease.
No wonder they want this stuff hidden from the public. The TV messaging from the Prop 8 backers, crafted by Schubert/Flint and used in Maine last fall to roll back marriage equality there, is very different than this. The campaign messaging involves vague notions of "protecting children" that appeals to anti-gay sentiment by blowing a dogwhistle instead of using a blunt and obvious statement.
In the absence of video coverage, liveblogging becomes all the more important for public access to this trial. The Courage Campaign Institute will continue to operate our successful liveblog, the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, which has received over 250,000 visits since we launched on Monday. Paul Hogarth of Beyond Chron is guestblogging for us today. Other liveblogs include Firedoglake.
Note: I am the Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign
Just as the trial of Proposition 8 was about to get underway in Judge Vaughn Walker's courtroom in San Francisco this morning, the US Supreme Court delivered an injunction against the promised video feeds and rebroadcasts of the trial. Calitics emeritus blogger David Dayen was in Pasadena at a 9th Circuit courtroom when the news came down. The injunction, which Justice Steven Breyer objected to, lasts until midday Wednesday when the full court will hear arguments about whether the broadcasts will go forward as planned, be expanded, or be ended entirely.
Several bloggers were able to make it into the Burton Federal Courthouse in downtown San Francisco this morning where the trial is happening, including the Courage Campaign's founder and chair, Rick Jacobs, who is liveblogging at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, a website we at the Courage Campaign (where I work as Public Policy Director) set up to monitor and hold accountable the right-wing organizations that are trying to undermine the course of justice. Jacobs has described fascinating exchanges between Judge Walker and Ted Olson such as this:
The judge is probing extensively whether or not the problem would be solved if the state of California "got out of the marriage business." He and Olson had a colloquy about whether domestic partnership for all would solve the problem. Olson had to have a note handed to him from his team to say that only opposite-sex couples over 62 can have domestic partnership. Judge Walker is very interested in seeing what change has occurred that should force the federal judiciary to enter the issue. He wants to know what evidence will show that makes the matter worthy of judgment. The judge is very, very smart. This is really, really fascinating. Olson is doing a great job in answering him. "What's the evidence going to show that Prop. 8" intended to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Olson: no question that Prop. 8 intended to discriminate. We'll put on evidence from the plaintiffs and others that show how they felt about the campaign, the sentiments that may have been used to motivate the voters.
At the outset of the trial, Judge Walker also made reference to the debate over the broadcast. He said that by 5PM last Friday, 138,542 comments were received in favor of broadcasting the trial - and only 32 were received opposing it. The Courage Campaign Institute and CREDO Mobile delivered a petition on Friday to Judge Walker with 138,248 signatures calling for the trial to be televised. It is a clear sign that the people want this case tried in full public view, and reject entirely the self-serving arguments of the anti-equality forces, people who are afraid to let the public know their bigoted motives for putting Prop 8 on the ballot.
No matter what happens at the SCOTUS this week, the Courage Campaign will continue to track this trial and the right-wing reaction to it.
UPDATE:We could also use your help in keeping this going. Maintaining the liveblog isn't free - if you can contribute $25, $50, $100 or more to the Courage Campaign Institute, we can continue to maintain the site as the trial unfolds. Thanks.
With the New Jersey State Senate rejecting gay marriage last week, the path to equality is now back in the courts. Lambda Legal has filed suit in the New Jersey Supreme Court, and the odds of success - based upon that state Court's ruling in 2006 - appear favorable. But all eyes this morning are on San Francisco - as District Court Judge Vaughn Walker hears Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, the controversial case to overturn Proposition 8 on federal grounds. For years, civil rights groups had carefully kept the federal courts out of gay marriage fights - and the prominent lawyers in Perry filed the suit without consulting them. But with most of marriage's legal benefits coming under federal law, it was only a matter of time before the federal courts weighed in on this issue. The trouble is that a wiser battle to start with would challenge the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - and in fact, there are such efforts in place. If the federal courts uphold Prop 8, it's not likely to affect New Jersey - but it could hurt efforts to repeal DOMA.
The federal trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger is supposed to start on Monday and Judge Walker has ruled to allow delayed YouTube posting of video. But earlier today the defendants (Prop 8 supporters) filed an emergency petition with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking them to stop the trial and overturn Walkers' ruling on YouTube. Merc:
In court papers, lawyers for the Prop. 8 campaign argue that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker did not have the legal authority to permit cameras in the trial, which is set to begin Monday in San Francisco. Prop 8 backers say that broadcasting the proceedings "is likely to negatively affect the fairness of the trial."
The plaintiffs had until 3 PM today to respond. This is all likely to move pretty quickly, given that the trial is supposed to start the next business day.
Meanwhile, NOM thinks they are going to lose the case.
Over the last few days they have been clearly communicating to their email list that Judge Walker is not friendly to them and now are blatantly saying they expect to lose the trial.
Brian Brown just sent out an email to NOM's list. Karen Occam has part of it up at LGBT POV. Brown writes:
We do not expect to win at the trial level, but with God's help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack.
Their major complaint is that Judge Walker has made this a full-blown trial, complete with witnesses and a broad set of issues under consideration. It will be a full and complete vetting of the issues, motivations and law surrounding marriage and equality for all.
This is perhaps my favorite part of Brown's massive missive:
That's right, the Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers contains a right to gay marriage--in their twisted view. This is judicial activism on steroids, and a flagrant disrespect for civility, common sense, and democracy.
Gay-marriage advocates believe they have a right to win. They think you and I don't count. NOM will be filing an amicus brief in this litigation, and will work with Protect Marriage and the lawyers for Prop 8 in every way we are asked.
My Mr. Brown your real feelings about marriage equality supporters seems to have slipped out. Usually you are so nice and polite, but now we are "twisted"? Would that be your bigoted side, showing about how you really feel about LGBTs?
So a legal trial, where there is lots of structure, procedure and rules is now disrespectful, uncivil, lacks common sense and is undemocratic? Pardon me while I laugh.
Yes, we do believe we have a right to win a court case. The judicial system creates winners and losers, shocker I know...
It isn't that we think you don't count, it's just that we think there are three branches of government with checks and balances on the other two. The judicial system has a role to play in determining the constitutionality of both federal and state law. That's exactly what will happen in the courtroom (with some luck) on Monday.
This trial is going to be full of drama. I'm very much looking forward to it. I know I've been a bit of a slacker about blogging as of late, but expect some more writing from me over the next few weeks about the trial.
As you are no doubt aware, starting on Monday, a Federal Court in San Francisco will review the California Supreme Court decision to uphold the infamous Proposition 8.
This trial will be one of the most important civil rights cases in a generation, in which Bush/Gore 2000 adversaries David Boies and Ted Olson team up to defeat California's Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriages. We don't want to miss it.
Firedoglake wants to bring Scooter-Libby-trial style reporting to San Francisco's Federal Courthouse. We have a California team -- David Dayen arrives from Los Angeles this weekend and I'll provide commentary and video interviews -- and will welcome Libby liveblogger Marcy Wheeler later in the week.
Note: I'm the Public Policy Director at the Courage Campaign
Later this month the long-awaited trial of Proposition 8 will commence in a federal courtroom in San Francisco. Judge Vaughn Walker will preside over the case brought by a legal dream team of Ted Olson (former Solicitor General under President Bush) and David Boies (who represented Al Gore in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000). Olson and Boies argue - correctly, in my view - that Proposition 8 is a straightforward violation of the 14th Amendment and should be struck down.
People across California and across the country are eagerly awaiting the trial, and fully expect to be able to follow it on television. But Judge Walker may close the courtroom to cameras, following on an outrageous demand from Prop 8 supporters.
One of the fundamental legal principles this country was built on is the openness and transparency of the judiciary. For the system to work, people must believe the process is fair, the outcomes just. And for that to occur, the public needs to be able to see what is going on in the courtroom.
On a case this important, the public's right to know should be protected and upheld in the broadest possible form. That means televising the proceedings. Since this isn't a criminal trial, there's no defendant who could be harmed by having this made public, no jury that could be swayed by the cameras. Since only a tiny handful of people will ever be able to be in the courtroom itself, that would seem like an open and shut case for allowing cameras in the courtroom. Right?
Well, not if you're the forces who put Prop 8 on the ballot and helped it pass. They are afraid of public scrutiny. Afraid of the camera. Afraid to let the people of this country hear the bigoted truth behind their defense of Proposition 8.
They have decided to organize the far-right to pressure Judge Walker to close the courtroom to cameras. Focus on the Family is circulating a petition to prevent the trial from being televised, and have generated tens of thousands of signatures.
Judge Walker was planning to allow cameras in, but as a result of the Prop 8 supporters' protestations, has agreed to hold a hearing on the matter next week. He is asking for public comments by this Friday. So you have a chance to determine the outcome - will Prop 8 supporters be able to hide their true arguments, or will the public interest and democratic transparency win out?
The Courage Campaign Institute, where I work as Public Policy Director, isn't going to wait to find out. We're going to organize to deliver petitions of our own to Judge Walker, as he has solicited, in order to uphold the public interest and demand that this trial be televised.
You can sign your name here - along with CREDO Mobile, we will hand deliver the signatures to the court in San Francisco on Friday. Your signature matters - the more signatures we deliver to the court, the more likely it is that he will do the right thing in the name of equality, accountability, and transparency.
Gathering signatures for any initiative is a challenge, make it a constitutional amendment with the added number of signatures, and it is even harder. To assure qualification, you'll need at least a million signatures, probably close to 1.2 million, as you will have a fairly substantial rate of invalid signatures. Pointing that out isn't meant to be a dash a cold water, but an idea of the size of the challenge in front of Love Honor Cherish. LHC is now gathering signatures to repeal Prop 8. From a LHC press release:
SignForEquality.com today launched a groundbreaking effort to gather signatures to repeal Proposition 8 and restore equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, marking the first time that social networking technology has been used to qualify a California initiative for the ballot.
"We're taking names," said John Henning, who is heading the SignForEquality.com effort as Executive Director of Love Honor Cherish. "SignForEquality.com will make history by using custom social networking tools, as well as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, to support an all-volunteer signature drive to repeal Prop 8. People throughout California can now help us win marriage back by the simple act of signing and collecting signatures."
For historical context, the last time a measure has qualified with a completely volunteer signature gathering force was 1984, 25 years and hundreds of initiatives ago. However, if there were ever motivated volunteers, this is the cause, and this is the time. Good luck to LHC and their supporters as they attempt to put the repeal measure on the ballot.
If you are interested in helping out, go to SignForEquality.com for more information.
You'll find the text of the measure over the flip.
This weekend's Camp Courage in Sacramento was a good tonic for the loss in Maine and part of our collective path forward to restoring marriage equality to California. The heart of Camp Courage is learning how to craft your "story-of-self" a personal, emotional version of who you are and why this issue matters so much to you. The goal is to empower activists to use their personal narrative to bring about political change. Stories-of-self can be used to recruit volunteers, to inspire a crowd or to change a persons' vote one door at a time.
It isn't easy to have people open up and share the most painful, scary, raw parts of their lives. But those are the stories that are the ones that need to be told the most. The power of Camp Courage comes from people risking sharing their stories of pain thus forming community and strength.
Adam Bink over at Open Left quotes Harvey Milk's famous "come out come out" speech and writes:
The same tactic Milk used for school employees everywhere must continue to be used in these communities. We have to encourage people in these towns to come out of the closet and say they want the right to marry. State Representative Mike Carey, who represents heavily Catholic downtown Lewiston and voted in favor of marriage equality in the legislature, pointed out to me that in these kinds of votes, the default vote is for fear, and it is a huge barrier to reach one's conscience if they have no personal knowledge of the issue. For all the "gay marriage will be taught in schools" ads our opponents ran in Maine and will run in other states that tap that fear element, we have to counter with people who can give voters that kind of personal touch on the issue.
It isn't just gay people that we need to come out and tell their stories, it is all of our wonderful straight allies. No, there is no application to become a straight ally, just start telling everyone you know your personal story of why you support equality for all.
One of our amazing volunteers that helped put together Camp Courage Sacramento Chris Huack brought his parents to Camp. He blogged about the experience at the Courage Campaign. Here is Chris relaying the three reflections his dad had about Camp. (more on the flip)
1 - He had no idea the pain that LGBT people had felt over discrimination and losing initiatives like Proposition 8 and Question 1 until he saw people speaking about them openly and honestly at the Camp. See, I have always been a more stoic, let's "focus on what we can do in the future" type of person, so for my Mom and Dad, they had never truly appreciated the pain this had inflicted on our community until they heard the stories of personal pain from others.
A year later, I don't know what went wrong. I don't know how to fix it.
We had the money. We had a stable campaign. We had the a robust well-oiled field campaign. We had a strong campaign manager. We had the turnout we wanted. We had great coordination between the netroots and the campaign. We had a not particularly religious state. We neutralized the church issue. We had a manageable voter universe. We had an opposition with an inferior media and field operation. We had TV ads with gay people in them. We responded to their attacks swiftly.
And we still lost.
Our campaign wasn't perfect. But it was damn good.
And that's why this loss is so hard. The lessons to be learned are not as obvious. Not knowing how to fix it makes it tempting to throw our hands up in the air and say at 0-31 we just can't win marriage rights at the ballot box. Or we have to wait a decade until we can.
But that would be letting them win. That would be giving up. That would be accepting inequality.
(It stinks, but with every day, we are one step closer to equality. Also, it seems Frank Schubert agrees with Paul, No on 1 did run the better field operation. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
I hate losing elections, but what I REALLY hate is losing after a high turnout. Losing because our base didn't vote is depressing, but at least it tells us what we need to do to win next time - and progressives can take heart in the fact that "the people" are truly on their side, if only they showed up. Last night, Maine's Question 1 passed 53-47 - despite a much higher turnout than expected (we matched last year's Obama level at the University of Maine in Orono, winning the campus 81-19.) The "No on 1" campaign also had a far greater field presence than the opposition, and superior financial resources. It reminds me of 2004, when Bush won despite the progressive base voting in record numbers. When California's Proposition 8 passed last year, everyone could tell that our side ran an awful campaign. It was painful, but gave us many lessons to learn - lessons that the "No on 1" campaign in Maine took to heart, and performed beautifully. That's why this loss is so much worse than Prop 8. I don't know what we could have done differently, and am too sleep-deprived to think it all through.
Here we are a year later and where do we find ourselves in the fight for marriage equality in California? Two major camps debating on whether to return to the ballot in 2010 or 2012 and we have to ask ourselves the question, "Have we learned from our mistakes?" Are egos and attitudes being altered in order for power to be shared and different voices heard? Has a clear strategy been created and presented? And what about our motivation - are we still angry and humiliated from our loss a year ago that we are planning to return to the polls with revenge?
While Rev. Stringfellow suggests some answers, he more importantly calls on us to self-evaluate. We are asking voters and society to recognize the dignity of LGBT people, but are we recognizing the value and dignity of those different from us? Of those who live on the East side, over the bridge or in the middle? Of those with whom we disagree about 2010 or 2012? Even of those who do not yet recognize our inherent human dignity as LGBT people?
We politicos are strategic thinkers and implementers who focus much of our energy on winning campaigns, but to achieve permanence in our victories we must ask and answer these questions.
John Garamendi received the endorsement of the Contra Costa Times today. It's basically the same stuff that they said back on the September 1 election. He's experienced, he knows his stuff, he'll have an impact. All stuff I can agree with.
However, there is at least one thing to quibble about, specifically the part about Harmer in this quote:
Garamendi supports the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and a change in the law to allow same-sex couples to legally marry. Harmer has not taken strong positions on either.(CCT 10/28/09)
Now, if one were to peruse over to the SF Chronicle's database of donors to Prop 8, you'd find one David Harmer of San Ramon having given $2200 to Yes on Prop 8. I'm not sure how much stronger of a position somebody could make. He literally put his money where his opinion is. He steadfastly opposes equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
We lost Prop 8. No matter how you want to slice and dice it now, who you blame, or what organizations were at fault, we lost Prop 8. The fight to repeal Prop 8 will be long and arduous, whether that is next year or in 2012.
But the fight to repeal Prop 8 is always continuing. Two ballot measures from opposite sides of the country deserve our attention at this very moment. It cannot wait.
Paul Hogarth has done a great job bringing the Maine story back to California (and Calitics) by going there to do canvassing and other campaign work. In Maine, the legislature passed a marriage equality bill, and it was signed into law by the Democratic Governor there, John Baldacci. Unfortunately, the opponents of marriage equality were able to gather enough signatures to put the law up for a vote as "Question 1." You might recall many of these same organizations from the Prop 8 fight. The biggest donor to the anti-equality Yes on 1 Campaign is the "National Organization for Marriage." NOM, as it is known, was very active in Prop 8 helping to raise money and spread lies and distortion about what exactly marriage equality was all about. And the Yes on 1 Campaign is even using the same consultant as the Prop 8 campaign, Frank Schubert. And yes, even the same ads, just replace the Pepperdine professor with a professor from Boston College.
But the No on 1 Campaign is fighting back. They've launched several ads (also available over the flip) that directly respond to the lies and distortions. However, while they've booked the TV time, they can still use resources to get the message out. Please consider giving to the No on 1 Campaign on our ActBlue Page:
And in Washington state, some right-wingers are trying to repeal domestic partnership rights. If Referendum 71 fails, we will be back at square one in our West Coast neighbor. It is imperative that this measure succeed in protecting rights for same-sex couples. Here on Calitics, Laurel has been giving us updates from Washington.
You can give to both campaigns on the Calitics ActBlue page. Alternatively, you can fly up to Seattle for $40 from SFO or $60 from LAX on Virgin America. I imagine it's similar on other carriers. Seems like a small cost to help protect human rights from the right-wing attacks.
